Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel

Bill Davidsen
2005-12-05T23:09:53Z

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 15:57 +0100, M. wrote:
>
>
>>if distros would align on those 6months versions those less
>>experienced users would get 5 years support on those kernels.
>
>
> no distro gives 5 years of support for a kernel done every 6 months;
> they start such projects more like every 18 to 24 months (SuSE used to
> do it a bit more frequently but it seems they also slowed this down).
>
>
>>example: redhat, suse and mandriva are releasing their new product
>>using the latest 6months (or whatever) kernel; they are not going to
>>patch it except for new filesystems or bugfixes because of the new dev
>
>
> "except for" is a slipperly slope. And "except for bugfixes" would be
> wrong... those would be the ones that need to be in the kernel.org
> kernel. As well as new hardware support. At which point.. what is the
> difference? Where do 'features' stop and where do 'only needed bugfixes'
> begin?

Given the examples of 2.2 and 2.4 ongoing low level maintenence, I think
that's a poor objection, a stable series (in the old sense) needs one
maintainer to make the decisions on what goings in, and typically people
will do the actualy work cooperating with the primary maintainer.

--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me